The failing NY Times illustrates the intellectual rigor of the Irma-climate change conversation:
But in Washington, where science is increasingly political, the fact that oceans and atmosphere are warming and that the heat is propelling storms into superstorms has become as sensitive as talking about gun control in the wake of a mass shooting.
Excellent analogy, if their point is that most gun control programs amount to politically DOA faith-based initiatives with little science behind them and little likelihood of making a notable impact on overall "gun violence". I am thinking specifically of the "assault weapons" ban but other proposals fit the bill.
As to the science behind the notion that climate change has already led to more ferocious hurricanes, well, its unsettled. From the NOAA:
- It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
By the end of the century we will know more. Hang on!